Talk:Bimini Road

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in the Bahamas may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] When?

When was this "road" discovered? I'm guessing 1969, but it really should be mentioned early on. Optrirominiluikus (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Firecircle (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atlantis

"To others, the Bimini Road is an ancient road, or perhaps a collapsed wall of the civilization of Atlantis. "

Why do people assume it was Atlantis?

Plato made up an island for one of his epic stories. That's why it's called literature though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Plato a philosopher, not a historian?

I believe that Plato, in this instance can be seen as both a philosopher and a historian. He is passing on a story someone told him - oral history.Drakonicon 18:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Any proof? One does not necessarily "make things up" for literature. Troy was not made up for Homer's stories, for example. We do not have access to the mind of Plato, and thus there is no way to know if he made it up or not. Of course if someone actually _did_ discover Atlantis then that would suggest that he did *not* make it up, but proving that he *did* make it up is a whole different ball game, and we just cannot do that. PS. I don't think that the Bimini Road *must* have been from Atlantis -- nothing like it was mentioned in Plato's dialogues, so even if Atlantis did exist there would still be no reason to think that a connection must exist as well. 170.215.83.212 03:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

They menstion lack of convincing evidence about the hypothisis of the imperial fleet but, I don't see anyone puting up any evidence of, the alians helped the imagianary Atlantians build it....

One reason I can think of that Bimini ROad is being investigated with the mindset that it may yield portions of an Atlantean sub-continent, is that Edgar Cayce cited Bimini, Azores, and Yucatan (I think?) as yielding Atlantean artifacts. There were three places he mentioned, cant rememebr just now, sorry. Anyway, Dr. Greg Little is one of many ARE investigators who have taken the Bimini hypothesis seriously. (see Links section below) Drakonicon 16:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Plato's Atlantis is not necessarily the real Atlantis (if there was one). Plato just reported what he learned in Egypt. However, It could be well possible that he altered the report to what he imagined would be an ideal society; to inspire the fellow citizens of greece.
However, what I am missing in this article: I think the Bimini Road stones where carbon dated to ~1500 BC. If that's true it does not match the usual atlantis timeframe; same as Santoria. However, I cant find a reliable source for that now. 85.176.178.0 19:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually Plato was telling what Solon was supposedly told by an Egyptian priest - only the story isn't mentioned anywhere in the historical record at all and mentions Athens. Problem is that the timeframe is all wrong and at the time the story says the Athens-Atlantis war was fought, Athens was at best a collection of mud muts. Darkmind1970 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I have added two links: one is an essay by Dr. Greg Little. I have found this info on him (below):

"Bio
Dr. Gregory Little holds a master's degree in psychology and a doctorate in counseling from Memphis State University. He is co-editor of Ancient Mysteries, a monthly newsletter for members of the official Edgar Cayce organization, The Association for Research and Enlightenment. Beginning in 1997, Greg began investigating a portion of the psychic readings of Edgar Cayce, which specifically covered the history of ancient America. This research culminated in the books “Mound Builders,” “Ancient South America,” and “Secrets of the Ancient World.”
In 2003 Greg and his wife Lora, took over the A.R.E.’s long running Search for Atlantis project, which focuses on the Bahamas area. During 2003, Greg and Lora made numerous trips to Bimini and Andros Island investigating sites that had initially been discovered in an extensive satellite imaging project as well as enigmatic underwater formations photographed from the air in the 1960s. They found that all of the sites had natural or modern explanations. But unexpectedly, on what they had initially planned to be their last day on Andros, they discovered a massive, three-tiered stone platform under shallow water. ["http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guests/75.html Find him here]

And a second link is to a video clip on explorations of the Bimini Road.Drakonicon 18:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. An analysis of someone else's psychic readings is FAR more accurate than say, actual science. O.O I'll tag it as pseudoscience.Mzmadmike (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Firecircle (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Greg and Lora little has since found a number of places, not only along the so-called "Bimini Road," but in numerous other places among the islands, including Andros island, where a second, and sometime a third, layer of stones lies below the "beach rock". Here's a link to these discoveries. ["http://www.mysterious-america.net/biminibeachrock.html] Firecircle (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tessellated pavement?

There hasn't been any citation given for this in a while (since it was tagged in July), should it be removed? It's possible that the "road" might have been created by this, but unless a citation can be found, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia, regardless of how likely or unlikely the explanation is. 170.215.83.212 03:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a picture of the TP in Tasmania (you'll have to scroll down) [1] Totnesmartin 21:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The evidence gathered by Eugene Shinn's geological study does not seem to conflict with the "tessellated pavement" theory. Why is tessellated pavement mentioned as an "alternative" theory, rather than a "supporting" theory? I'm also concerned by the fact that the scientific evidence is thrown in the bottom of the article, as if it were a mere afterthought, when the article would be better served by mentioning Shinn's study, as well as the Tasmanian rock formations, at the beginning of the article. Brash (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phenomenon?

The first sentence calls it a phenomenon. It isn't - a phenomenon is an event. What would could we put instead, that describes it? Feature? Object? Structure? Totnesmartin 15:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagged as confusing

I've tagged this article as there is no indication of what the Bimini Road exactly is (aside from a "formation"). A formation of what? Steel? Marshmallows? There's no indication of whether it's in the water or on land (after all, it does say "in" the Bahamas) What are the dimensions? Many miles? A few hundred feet? This article contains who, when, where, how, and why, but not what. -71.51.51.120 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded and re-arranged a bit. Hopefully, the article is less confusing now. At the very least, I've put the marshmallow theory to rest. --Clay Collier 08:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but surely that should take away some of the mystery and allure from the topic? Pardon my cynicism, but the Bimini Road is having one its regular resurrections - and will doubtless be debunked, yet again, soon. Darkmind1970 09:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should give a depth beneath the surface for this formation. One can infer from the text that it is probably less than six feet, but a specifically stated range would be better. Olan7allen 02:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Few Facts About the Formation

Firecircle (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC) I, along with several others, visited Dr. Valentine in Miami and learned a lot about his discovery, and his opinion of it, in June 1970 (about a year after his discovery). He gave me a copy of the Muse News (a publication of the Science Museum of Miami) in which he describes the so-called Bimini Road in detail. He gives the depths of the water in which it lies, the length of the formation, the type of stone, the size of the stones, etc. Would you like me to enter some of these details early (like 2nd para.) into the article so people might get some idea of what kind of formation it is? Firecircle (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Firecircle (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC) I'm waiting for a respnse. I hesitate to enter something without some sort of permission. I have four short paragraphs of factual material all ready, gleaned from the Muse News article. Also, I wonder why the unsubstantiated "hypothesis" concerning the Chinese shipwrek remains as part of this article. Nothing has yet appeared to back it up, and I believe it detracts from, rather than contributes to, what might eventually become an excellent article. Firecircle (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Firecircle (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC) I didn't get a response, so I went ahead and made changes. I also did some cleanup work (proper references, etc.) and added three categories. Take a look, and make sure everything is Ok. Firecircle (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Mythical" exhibits bias

I have substituted the word "Plato's" for "mythical" because the word is a loaded expression exhibiting unwarrented bias. There is much physical evidence in favor of the existence of the lost civilization. Just because that existence is not accepted by mainstream science is no reason to label it mythical. I believe the article benefits from the use of none-loaded terms (such as "Plato's Atlantis" as opposed to "mythical"). Firecircle (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is corroborating physical evidence for Atlantis, please cite it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Atlantis is mythical (there are myths that describe it), but I'd support your point that using "mythical" here is a loaded term and thus a bad choice of phrase. However your edit war isn't the way to go about this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no war. No one was identifying himself, or giving a reason for the change. If you would like to see scientific information (not proving Atlantis, only giving reasonable scientific data in its favor) go to Google, enter Quest for Atlantis, then click on the first one. If you can see all the scientific papers, journals, and other scientific works the information comes from, and maintain the same position, so be it. I am not fighting with anyone--only wanting to be fair. Thanks for responding.Firecircle (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well call me a skeptic, but I prefer not to read my facts from a TV channel whose very name includes the word "fiction" ! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
WHOA, Andy! The "Quest for Atlantis" I referred to was not a TV channel! It's a web site dealing with the scientific evidence for Atlantis authored by an anthropologist named R. Cedric Leonard. The web site goes into oceanographic, geologic, and anthropological aspects of the question using data from mostly scientific sources (identifying each source). Also, I was attempting to keep professional geologist opinion together (separating it from psychic stuff) when I changed the location of that subtitle. Everything I did was in the interest of fairness--Wikipedia deserves no less. Let me know what you think after you,ve thought it over. And let's be friends, Ok?Firecircle (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Andy, it's my fault! I just checked Google and today it's the 3rd one down (it's usually the first). I don't really want to put the url on this discussion page, so I'm doing the best I can to lead you to it. Take several days to look it over if you like: it covers a lot of territory. And it's nice to met you.Firecircle (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean this one? http://www.atlantisquest.com Why not add it as a cite to the article itself, as an accessible on-line version of Leonard's book? Assuming it's an accurate representation (I haven't read it, and I don't have the book for comparison) and it's appropriately referenced, then I don't see a problem with that. Apologies for my misunderstanding - I thought you meant the "Quest for Atlantis" with the huge heading title in the article. (and if it's not mythical, why is it a "quest" ?) Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
We have to agree to disagree here. This article should put forward both views, but avoid denigrating EITHER one in favour of the other. This is not the place to decide such an issue (if it was, we'd fall foul of "No Original Research" anyway. I'm going to re-name both headings and see if we can find something that's fair to both sides. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'm glad you found the site I was referring to. There is a lot of scientific information there. There are a lot of things still not "nailed down" in science yet, but that doesn't mean they are "mythical" (non-existent). I appreciate you trying to find fair compromises. I don't think I'll ever be happy with putting professional opinions in with psychic readings though. Have a good day, and thanks for your time. Firecircle (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In order to keep the reader out there from associating Dr. Holms professional opinion from psychic readings, I eliminated the latter and listed a number of more down to earth researchers opinions. I think this is only fair. If you look above this section you will see that I have supplied nearly all of the data for this article, used original source material in regard to their discovery, eliminated one querky theory (totally unsupported), and in short saved the article from being deleted. (It originaly contained all sorts of warnings, and requests for verification, all of which I supplied.) I have also provided data and answers to all those above who were totally confused about what the article was about. I think I have earned the right to keep out the psychics (or at the very least keep them separated) from serious research on the subject. If you do not agree, let's hear your side. Firecircle (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

R Cedric Leonard is anything but a reliable source (true of anyone probably who buys their Doctorate degrees).--Doug Weller (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
"I eliminated the latter and listed a number of more down to earth researchers opinions. I think this is only fair. "
I think this is a vast piece of censorship on your part, blatant failure of WP:NPOV and I'll be reverting it later tonight. The Cayce stuff is reported fairly. Just because _you_ don't hold with the Atlantean viewpoint is no reason to start suppressing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies Andy. I have nothing against Mr. Cayce or his views on Atlantis. I do think it is in the interest of Wikipedia to list Psychic matters separately from scientific opinion. And by the way, I have read Leonard's stuff for quite some time (and have done considerable checking on his sources), and have never found anything that was falsified or unreliable. It appears to me he has done a lot of good work. Firecircle (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Others will differ. Leonard believes in flying saucers, ancient Indian airplanes, and ancient astronauts. He makes statements such as " Linguists and Ethnologists are able to trace the Indo-Europeans back for 10,000 years to their original homeland in Central Europe." which are demonstrably untrue (unless of course his linguists and ethnologists aren't recognised by today's linguists and ethnologists). --Doug Weller (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The science is already listed in the section above. As to whether Plato's Atlantis or Charles Berlitz is more credible, then I find it hard to judge between two branches of unqualified hokum. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

After reading your comments on Leonard, I have gone over the Indian aircraft and UFO related sections and failed to find a "belief" expressed anywhere. He seems to be giving several controversial subjects an even shake as far as I can tell. He quotes a well-known Sanskrit record as to one of the possibilities of how Atlantis was destroyed without pronouncing any kind of judgment. As far as the Indo-European question raised, no one seems to really know their origin (there are at least three models going among legitimate authorities at present, and these change about every decade or so). His view appears to be closest to what is called the Paleolithic Continuity Theory (PCT). Firecircle (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] von Daniken

Does anyone have the book citation for von Daniken's spiel on the Bimini Road? It would be a useful addition to the article - vD's as crazy as a loon IMHO, but the publication of his theories was a notable point in the history of public knowledge of their existence. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We also need to note that much of what's in here is pseudoscience. Psychic readings. Plato said someone said someone else said some priests told him about an Atlantis, so this flat rock thousands of miles away MUST be that place. It's hardly convincing.Mzmadmike (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest some section headings:
* What & where
* Straight geology
* Creative explanations
Wording for these is up to someone more politically correct than me. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Daniken and Cayce, if they are mentioned at all, should be mentioned in a separate section at the end, separated from this other geologist who thinks the formation is made by humans. Whether he is wrong or right, would a professional in the scientific discipline of geology want his statements right next to, and inbetween, statements from some of the biggest liars? If mentioned at all as sources, Daniken and Cayce should be pointed out as people who have made things up in the past and are noted charlatans. (24.7.78.170 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

Why is Little any more credible than von Daniken? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I was mainly referring to this Dr. Holm who is described as a professional geologist.
Clearly, anyone who associates with ARE, any religion, or "atlantis" has already cast themselves in a dubious light. However to completely dismiss someone's physical claims because of such an association is also incorrect, after all Isaac Newton believed in a god, and probably many legitimate archaeologists have been members of religions. Little's physical claims about the site (such as if he worked with a team that was videotaped excavating additional layers below the surface) should be treated separately from his defense of Cayce, as we would treat a scientists physical claims about a real world phenomenon separately from a personal belief in religion.
Cayce and Von Daniken, if they made physical claims about the site based on actual excavation, could also be discussed. However, Von Daniken has been exposed as lying about even going to see various things he described. A Cayce quotation is used, purportedly proving he predicted the exact date this would be discovered, however the references given for this quotation go to dubious pro-cayce websites and give different years for it, either 36, 38, or 40, and there is not a single reference to where this quotation came from or can be confirmed. With psychic or religious predictions, you need to be extra skeptical when someone claims that they predicted something long ago, but they only announce the prediction after it happened. Like how the Catholic Church has claimed the end of world war 1 and the start of world war 2 were predicted by the fatima prophecies, only these "prophecies" were kept secret until after the events occurred, allowing us to see it is more likely they were made up after the fact. The possibilities are: Cayce really did make such a statement as part of one of his numerous psychic rants and his followers later screened and released the few predictions that had some similarity to the real world; or the "prediction" was made up in 1968 or after.
I don't know what the real explanation is, however the human made harbor breakwater or the natural formation are the only two realistic ones, and rational discussions about these two possibilities should be in one section, and irrational discussions of aliens, atlantis, psychic predictions, Cayce, von Daniken, etc should go in another section. Think of it like this, if there were supporters of the natural explanation who additionally relied on psychic or religious evidence ("the lady of fatima told me we would discover a naturally occurring formation!"), would you reference their crazy rants right next to and mixed with the rational explanations, or would you want that type of claim segregated in its own section.
On another note, Atlantis is completely mythical, it was made up as an allegory by Plato so it was originally allegorical and not mythical, but by now it is mythical because of misinformation. There are real civilizations and individual parts of civilizations which have been submerged, but these aren't Atlantis. By now, the term is generic enough so that "atlantis" refers to any submerged city so on that basis having a tv program called "the search for atlantis" may not automatically make such a program pseudoscientific, but they usually are. We would have to see the specific show to be able to tell whether it was one of the worse ones (the majority).

(24.7.75.93 (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Little's discovery of objects that could be anchors should be mentioned, as if his team is right about what they are that would be pretty good evidence. scroll to the bottom and look at the objects that may be anchors Also maybe someone who knows more geology could write something about the claims made by Little about Shinn's report.(24.7.75.93 (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
The "anchors" are unconvincing evidence for the "Road" being "harbour wall". Any "harbour" explanation requires that the wall was taller than ship draught and so must have been partially buried by sediment to reduce it to its current height. These anchors were retrieved from above this sediment, implying that whether they're anchors or not, they certainly aren't contemporaries to some hypothetical harbour. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
What part were the claimed anchors retrieved from? Little says that farther north on the inner side the water is 10 and later 25 feet deep. What range of sizes of ships and depth of the draught would be consistent with anchors of this size? Also, it could be that the "anchors" do come from a later time but that in itself doesn't necessarily prove or disprove theories about earlier origins. (24.7.75.93 (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
I did note the appalling ad hominenems in Little's critique of Shinn, but this was reverted by an anon IP. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah Little's thing is annoying to read because he defends Cayce as part of it and some parts read like ad hominems against Shinn, however he did note some things that appear to be ad hominems used by Shinn, so just the fact that one or both sides have used ad hominems might not be that interesting to add to the discussion about the evidence. Unless Little is caught faking something, we should treat his physical claims as claims that should be debated with other physical claims, since he is at least trying to look for evidence and not just making psychic predictions like Cayce.
Also it should be noted, that claims about credentials though they may be ad hominem are not necessarily irrelevant, for example an appeal to authority is sometimes correctly countered by a demonstration of the dubious quality of said authority along with other arguments that do not rely on ad hominem. Certain other logical fallacies have legitimate uses in certain contexts and the idea that the presence of one fallacious argument disproves everything else from the same source is a fallacy itself. As an example, there was a review (dont remember where) of skeptical literature that showed presence of logical fallacies, yet I would still recommend skeptical literature highly.(24.7.75.93 (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC))